War Watch: Troop Increase Center of Debate, 13,000 Support Troops Approved for Afghanistan

• In March, President Obama approved a buildup of 21,000 additional combat troops in Afghanistan. But the Washington Post reported this morning that the White House silently approved sending to the region an additional 13,000 support troops—engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts, and military police. When the 34,000 troops arrive, before year’s end, the American military presence in in Iraq and Afghanistan will be larger than it was at the peak of George W. Bush’s surge. (Washington Post)

• Today’s news of the additional troops adds heat to the debate over escalation in Afghanistan, which, as of late, has centered almost exclusively on Obama’s potential troop increase. General Stanley McChrystal has given the president three options. Typically, generals will present three requests to emphasize why the middle option—in this case a troop increase of 40,000—is the preferred option. The smaller option of 10,000 may be more palatable to voters, whereas the maximum option, of 60,000 troops, is likely to stir opposition. (Wall Street Journal) • If President Obama approves General McChrystal’s request for tens of thousands more troops, they will come from an Army that is already strapped for properly rested soldiers. With more than 100,000 troops in Iraq and nearly 68,000 in Afghanistan, American forces may have difficulty sustaining troop numbers after 2010. The Army wants to give soldiers and Marines 18 months to two years between year-long deployments. And though troops are drawing down in Iraq, freeing up more for Afghanistan, the Army must be prepared to sustain the current (and most likely increased ) troop levels not only through 2010, but for two to three years after that. One of the most common complaints among soldiers in extended conflicts is that they do not have enough time between deployments to even “get a relationship started,” according to John Nagl, a former Army lieutenant colonel and president of Center for New American Security. For an Army already strained by two wars, the only way to keep soldiers home longer between deployments is to increase the overall size of the Army. (NPR)

• Pakistan has been devastated by attacks over the past week as its Army prepares for an offensive against militants in the restive Waziristan region. Last Monday, a suicide bomber dressed in a paramilitary uniform blew himself up inside the U.N. aid agency in the heart of the capital, Islamabad, killing five. Friday, a militant detonated a car bomb in a busy market in Peshawar, killing 53. The most threatening attack to national security occurred on Sunday in Rawalpindi, where Taliban militants stormed the Army’s headquarters (Pakistan’s “Pentagon”). The 22-hour siege—at one point there were 40 hostages—left 19 dead and illustrated the Taliban’s capacity for wreaking havoc on the Pakistani Army. Yesterday, in Alpuri in the northwest region of the country, a car bomb went off near a paramilitary convoy killing around 40 people, the majority of which were civilians. (Washington Post, AP, LA Times, BBC, NPR, Foreign Policy)

• Much of the discussion over American efforts in Afghanistan has focused on the link between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban provided a haven for al-Qaeda when the terrorist group plotted the 9/11 attacks, which provoked the U.S. to overthrow Afghanistan’s Taliban government. Last week, the president held several meetings with his war council—including General McChrystal, who appeared via video link from Kabul—to discuss the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. While many feel that the link between al-Qaeda and Taliban is diminishing—there are reportedly less than 100 al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan now—Bruce Riedel, who has 29 years of experience with the C.I.A., warns that it’s a “fairy tale” to think that the two can be split. (Telegraph, Washington Times, Foreign Policy)

• Between weapons, ammunition, radios, first-aid kits, water, night-vision goggles, and more, soldiers and Marines are often weighed down by upwards of 80 pounds of equipment. C.J. Chivers, a former Marine and a reporter for the New York Times, set out to determine which piece of equipment a soldier can’t go without. The answer: his helmet. A military historian estimated that helmets worn by soldiers in World War II saved 76,000 Americans from “serious injury or death.” (New York Times/At War)